Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,222 Year: 5,479/9,624 Month: 504/323 Week: 1/143 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Mimicry and neodarwinism
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 103 of 188 (348367)
09-12-2006 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dr Adequate
09-11-2006 10:46 PM


Dr Adequate about Hypolimnas misippus writes:
...Venezuela, Florida. Tropical zones of the Old World"
But not a damn word about it being found in southeast Asia.
So your own link shows:
(1) It is not found where you say it's found.
(2) It is not the subject of mimicry, but a mimic.
(3) The butterfly it mimics is not L. albomaculata
(4) The butterfly it mimics is indeed found in its region of origin.
How wrong can you get? Do creationists have some sort of competition over who can manage the most misinformation per sentence, or what?
And why were you so wrong?
If you spend more time on internet, you could spare us reading of this totaly incompetent response. You could find that Hypolimnas misippus lives in south-east Asia as well as I wrote:
The species occurs around the whole equatorial belt: Africa, south-east Asia, the northern half of Australia, the Pacific Islands, North and South America, and the West Indies, including :
Error (404) - The University of Sydney
If you had read more carefully my post, you could noticed, that this case of mimetism was described by Poulton. Poulton was prominent scientist who spent his time outside in nature and I dare say that no armchair google "scientist" can proved him as liar.
Maybe Poulton wrote predominantly about south-east Asia H.m., because as convinced darwinist he wanted to explain, how is it possible, that Limenitis albomaculata mimics mentioned Hypolimnas misippus (and not opposite as is the claim in totaly incompetent and speculative response in point 3). And south-east Asia is not as far from west China as America is.
What I was waiting for was some darwinian fairy-tail about migrating birds with archetypical idea of Hypolimnas misippus to which Limetis alb. accomodated or something like that. And not this incompenetent illogical response.
---
remark: Btw. do you know, that "Old World" incorporate Asia too? Yet I do not see even if I was wrong a point. If H.m. does not live in south-east Asia is it better for a darwinist to explain mimicry when model and its mimic live far more distantly as previously assumed?
Or even maybe there is only "superficial resemblance" between these species? Something, that Poulton missed, but armchair google researcher noticed immediately?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-11-2006 10:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2006 10:08 PM MartinV has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 108 of 188 (348728)
09-13-2006 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Belfry
09-12-2006 5:41 PM


Re: cryptic honeybees
Anyway aposematism like mimicry of Papilion dardanus (see Nijhout 2003 - my first message) did not evolve gradually as proposed by Darwin. Here is citation from Joron "Aposematism" 2002:
"Laboratory experiments using the “novel world” design (Figure 2) showed rather unequivocally that aposematic patterns cannot evolve gradually in unpalatable prey. Indeed, small increases in visibility in cryptic prey increased attack rates without enhancing learning."
http://zeldia.cap.ed.ac.uk/joron/joron02apo.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Belfry, posted 09-12-2006 5:41 PM Belfry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2006 1:15 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 110 by Wounded King, posted 09-13-2006 3:18 PM MartinV has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 111 of 188 (348846)
09-13-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
09-13-2006 1:15 PM


Re: cryptic honeybees
I will continue cite from the same article (next sentences):
"Therefore, a gradual increase in conspicuousness towards aposematism seems unlikely. This means that the evolving population must undergo a sudden jump, both in phenotype (to get a pattern that predators categorize as a different item), and in numbers beyond a threshold frequency (to allow the local predators to learn about the new pattern)."
In other words: saltationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2006 1:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2006 6:03 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2006 8:09 PM MartinV has not replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 113 of 188 (348871)
09-13-2006 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Brad McFall
09-13-2006 4:11 PM


Re: Regarding mushrooming to a new place
Brad McFall, thank you for your post.
In mushrooms - in my opinion - are interesting not only shapes, but also very different colors. In same area you can see green, yellow, white, red ones.
Yet I would like to ask you something on mimicry. In one thread with Davison you mentioned and cited article from Vaclav Petr "British metaphysics as reflected in Robert Broom's evolutionary theory". It is very good article - my favourite, especially interesting is also part about Snyder & Mitchell (1999) there on human abilities as observed on autistic savants.
Yet there is also this sentence: "Structuralist Frankfurt school of constructional morphologists deny the existence of camouflage and mimicry by saying that "the predator probably cannot see it" (Edlinger, Gutmann and Weingarten 1991)." It sounds like Heikertinger propostion, that mimicry does not exist at all.
Do you have any thougts on it?
http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~vpetr/Broom.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Brad McFall, posted 09-13-2006 4:11 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Brad McFall, posted 09-14-2006 4:26 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 118 of 188 (349808)
09-17-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Brad McFall
09-14-2006 4:26 PM


Re: Re:"Frankfurt school"
Let’s assume the worst instead however, since I know that I have not done this and I do not know of any one else with the kind of interest to attempt the same or similar, namely that it must be taken LITERALLY that “petrifaction” can create FISH shapes (Aggasiz simply had “dreams” about this, not literalisms as I understand it).
But it does not mean, that if petrification cannot create fish shapes in stones (are we sure?), that "petrification" cannot create other similar shapes in insect realm. If petrification is changed for "internal forces" or "creative forces" nature of which is not material, these forces can represents themselves for instance in hornet moth and hornet. For some people resemlances of these are due "mimicry", "mutation/selection", but maybe there is no selection advantage or - selection advantage only as "akcidentia" but "substantia" of these two species.
After reading some philosophy of Giordano Bruno I have no problem accept Brooms "spiritual forces" as sommething unreal. Giordano Bruno believed - in denial of Ptolemaios - that planets and stars are not steady but are moved by "internal forces" that later becomes gravity. So he was right.
If we now in biology know nothing about "internal forces" it does not mean, that sometimes they cannot be discovered or better described. Anyway explanation may be more adequate - especially for me - as neodarwinism ("modern neoptolemaionism").
Edited by MartinV, : Ptolemaios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Brad McFall, posted 09-14-2006 4:26 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2006 10:16 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 120 of 188 (349960)
09-18-2006 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Brad McFall
09-17-2006 10:16 PM


Re: Regarding "above" vs "outside"
Thanks for response and materials.
Are you sure that one would want to go so far as to suggest that the fine structure of a fossil fish like this
is causable by the fairly large scale forces that separate the forms of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks no matter the likeness to biological shape?
I do not have book from D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson yet I know he compares for instance jellyfish and the forms of drops of liquid falling into viscous fluid and many more surprising resemblances of forms in living and inanimate world.
It is too far audacious to assume, that fossil fish was created by no-fossilization process, but where is the boundary of which shapes are intrinsic to inanimate and which to living world I do not know.
Anyway even if fossil fish was not created by "internal forces" it does not mean, that these forces does not exist at all.
If there is no issue here the exchange is probably only about various inclinations from “misology.” That’s my guess.
You might be right. Yet in one of your sended copy pages is a proposition, that earth is a living organism. Of the same opinion, that earth lives was G.Bruno and this conception is recurring throughout ages, in 20th century again as Gaia. I am not sure, how to define truth, but assuming that living earth give us more deeper insight into reality, why condemn it or even call it misology? Btw. it is reflected in orthodox lands (as Russia) as custom of kissing her (Dostoevskys hero Raskolnikoff before confession of committing murder kissed earth. Sonja told him:"Go to the crossroads, bow to people and kiss the earth, because you sinned before her too.." - and he was commented by pedestrians as beeing drunk - or misolog by a bypassing philosopher?)
I am afraid, that almost all phylosophical speculation can be marked as misology. Yet on Bruno opinion it is big fortune to have the right philosophy even though others philosophies can give also good results too.
But what it has to do with "mimicry", well, I am not as sure.
If there are "internal forces" or "vegetative soul", than they can explain homology and Batesian/Mullerian mimicry as well.
I have cited Suchantke, that resemblances between some insects and leaves are very elaborated, detailed. This phenomenon so to say goes against natural appearance of the insect, against its logic of development according Suchantke (it might be originally Adolf Portmann opinion, I would guess). Assuming influence - my opinion - of internal forces or even influence of "vegetative soul" it could have led to the given outcome. In that case also Batesian/Mullerian mimicry can be detected and even some selective advantage can be even proved to be a fact.
Yet the origin of resemblances or mimicry is in internal forces and not in mutative/selective dyada even though it seems so. Selection is only accident that occurs and that can mislead a darwinian naturalist as to the reason of resemblance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Brad McFall, posted 09-17-2006 10:16 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2006 6:13 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 123 of 188 (350289)
09-19-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Brad McFall
09-18-2006 6:13 PM


Re: Regarding "above"
Your reply here seems to indicate that I am not the person you are writing to here.
I know very well that it is not your opinion, it was not intented for you but for reader who could make wrong conclusions. I am here often charged of faulty logic, that if from {A} does not follow {B} and so on... So I put it there.
Which 'copy page' has the reference to Earth as a living organism?
Kants words you have sended sounded ( 80):

"He can suppose the bosom of mother earth, as she passed out of her chaotic state (like a great animal), to have given birth in the beginning to creatures of less purposive form, that these again gave birth to others which formed themselves with greater adaptation to their place of birth and their relations to each other; until this womb becoming torpid and ossified, limited its births to definite species not further modifiable, and the manifoldness remained as it was at the end of the operation of that fruitful formative power."
In German Edition I found "Mutterscho der Erde" and "...bis diese Gebrmutter selbst, erstarrt, sich verknchert, ihre Geburten auf bestimmte fernerhin nicht ausartende Spezies eingeschrnkt htte,... "
He might have expressed himself little bit poetically but I would not say from this sentences, that Kant considered earth as unanimate, passive substantia.
Anyway, if Kant supposes forces behind life like those which work in the formation of crystals, it might be noteworthy cite this sentence from 58:

"Formation, then, takes place by a shooting together, i.e. by a sudden solidification, not by a gradual transition from the fluid to the solid state, but all at once by a saltus; which transition is also called crystallisation."
English translation used word "saltus", in German internet version is only "Sprung":
"...sondern gleichsam durch einen Sprung, welcher —bergang auch das Kristallisieren genannt wird."
But he did not connect this jump in crystalisation with (gradual) evolution, which he seems to foresee (again 80):

"This analogy of forms, which with all their differences seem to have been produced according to a common original type, strengthens our suspicions of an actual relationship between them in their production from a common parent, through the gradual approximation of one animal-genus to another..."
"Common parent" and "gradual" seems to me to be evolutionary burdened terminus-technicus, Kant used "von einer gemeinschaftlichen Urmutter" and "stufenartige Annherung" but it is baffling anyway.
What might be of interest in discussion is following citation.

"So, without detracting from the teleological principle by which we judge of organisation, we may well think that the beauty of flowers, of the plumage of birds, or of shell-fish, both in shape and colour, may be ascribed to nature and its faculty of producing forms in an aesthetically purposive way, in its freedom, without particular purposes adapted thereto, according to chemical laws by the arrangement of the material requisite for the organisation in question."
Some butterflies patterns on wings can be perceived no doubt aesthetically, and even if two different species have same patterns on wings it does not mean, that selection and not other force caused it. I do not know what forces they are, but ascribe to beauty only selective/sexual advantage (as far as it even draw attention of predators!) seems to me queery.
Kant would be surprised hearing that beauty on world is due to selective pressure not to be eaten.
Online Library of Liberty
Literatur - Kultur - DER SPIEGEL
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Brad McFall, posted 09-18-2006 6:13 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Brad McFall, posted 09-19-2006 5:37 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 125 of 188 (350710)
09-20-2006 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Brad McFall
09-19-2006 5:37 PM


Re: Re:garding "above"
Kant has another passage where he speaks of sex(es) explicitly and as in this last part of the Critique of Judgment he sustains that it is the habitat that must be attended to reflexively first, I do not see that this need mean that the physical Earth is "alive."
It will be very difficult for me to follow discussion while my knowledge of Kants philosophy is superficial. Anyway you inspire me to resume reading Kritik reinen Vernunft. Its my aim to underestand it eventually. Thank you.
I do not insist that Earth is living organism - btw. as far as I know, to define life is difficult - I mentioned it because also Giordano Bruno supposed that Earth lives. As modern renaissance anti-Ptolemaios scientist he sure had seen what see we, but he wrote, that
Earth breathe and physically described complicated motion of Earth in many directions. For instance daily circulation around axis cause not only changing day and night but also Coriolis force, that should cause some developmental processes (influence of Coriolis forces on the growth of living organisms) as is written in your Gladyshev link:
http://www.endeav.org/persons/gladysh.htm
It would be interesting to know in more details what does he mean.
As to the "saltus" development of crystals - it is interesting, because this example serves to marxists as example par excellence to corroborate their "scientific" law of change of quantity into quality.I recollect, that Gould somewhere in Panda thumb wrote, that he found some support in thinging of soviet scientists (here in East Europe we were indoctrinated with this marxists theory of "saltationism", "revolutions" - social revolutions etc...) and I suppose that it is somehow reflected in the theory of "punctuated equilibrum" too.
If I may ask you - do you think, that reading Kants legacy can - except to learn what the brillant thinking really is - somehow elucidate process of evolution or forces behind it?
For instance Kant writes (in mentioned 58):
Flowers, blossoms, even the shapes of entire plants; the elegance of animal formations of all kinds, unneeded for their proper use, but, as it were, selected for our taste; especially the charming variety so satisfying to the eye and the harmonious arrangement of colours (in the pheasant, in shell-fish, in insects, even in the commonest flowers), which, as it only concerns the surface and not the figure of these creations (though perhaps requisite in regard of their
internal purposes), seems to be entirely designed for external inspection; these things give great weight to that mode of explanation which assumes actual purposes of nature for our
aesthetical Judgement.
We know examples, where mimicry concerns not only surface, but also change shapes - for instance spiders that mimic ants. Maybe mimicry is not good example for beauty, but some mimics of Papilio Dardanus are as beautiful as their models. Kant was - I dare say - finalist who supposed teleological meaning as valid, so maybe knowing some mimics he would suppose, that Nature would like something say us with this phenomenon?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Brad McFall, posted 09-19-2006 5:37 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Brad McFall, posted 09-20-2006 6:43 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 127 of 188 (351102)
09-21-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Brad McFall
09-20-2006 6:43 PM


Re: Re:garding "above"
I am sorry, but I am unable to follow you. It would be necessary for me to read Kant "Kritik" books completely as you and not only as a "google researcher" pick up some sentences and do inane sophistic conclusions from them.
Anyway I have some thougts. I read now works of Giordano Bruno, who (like Paracelsius or in modern time C.G.Jung ) draw some ideas no doubt from compilated yet influental Corpus Hermeticum, Poemandres.
I am not advocate or follower of New Age at all but some thoughts may be incentive:
1)
Are we sure, that forces that had once driven evolution are still valid and can be observed?
In Poemandres there is on my opinion very no-traditional notice, that materia once possesed spirit,but it is not reality any more:
Straightway from out the downward elements God's Reason (Logos) leaped up to Nature's pure formation...and Nature's downward elements were thus left reason-less, so as to be pure matter.
2)
Plato in Symposion mentioned that mankind was once beside men and women androgynous.
Davison writes, that sexes were established to stabilize result of evolution and to block any successive evolutionary process.
According Poemandres there were no sexes on beginning too:
Though (man) male-female, as from a Father male-female...
.
For all the animals being male-female, at the same time with Man were loosed apart; some became partly male, some in like fashion [partly] female.
3)
You wrote, that earth is not living organism - I agree - but are we sure that it was same in past? We cited Kant, but Poemandres sounds alike:
And from her bosom Earth produced what lives she had, four-footed things and reptiles, beasts wild and tame.
Kant wrote - you have your own explanation - that Earth womb became torpid and ossified. But let me cite Giordano Bruno (On infinity, universum and worlds), my translation from Czech: "...one of which (celestial body) is Earth, our divine mother, which gave us birth and nurtures us, but she will never try it again."
This "she will never try it again" seems to me in accordance as with Poemandres as with Kant.
Cloudflare Captcha Page | Web.com
My intention is no way to propagate Gaias idea but only to ponder if forces which we see and measure now and from which we make conclusions are the same ones as in the past and that had driven once evolution (and if evolution is not therefore finished, even though it is a different topic. But it is due to my ignorance of Kant - only how to postpone reading him).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Brad McFall, posted 09-20-2006 6:43 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Brad McFall, posted 09-22-2006 4:44 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 131 of 188 (352148)
09-25-2006 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Brad McFall
09-22-2006 4:44 PM


Re: Re:garding "above"
Unless we say how the Newtonian notion or Einsteinian notion or force within a chemical bond is not merely "approximately" forming creatures, but manifestly and potentially deterministically is I think it is hard to say that the "forces" if that is what they really are that are assumed to have formed forms once are not not forming forms now.
I do have in my mind not only forces of these "unanimate" types. I would like compare these forces also to complexes of hormones, morphogenes, activation of homeobox genes etc during embryonal and subsequent development. If evolution is finished as Broom/Davison stated and we are observing so to say only decrepit old man, we cannot deduce from his declining status to forces, that once had driven his development, while many of them exist not any more - as soft parts of bones during growth that are now in him - as Kants womb of earth - ossified.
But of course this consideration is valid only if there is also some relation between ontogenesis and phylogenesis.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Brad McFall, posted 09-22-2006 4:44 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Brad McFall, posted 09-25-2006 4:48 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 133 of 188 (353475)
10-01-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Brad McFall
09-25-2006 4:48 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Davison metioned in Manifesto also Phyllium. These insects mimics leaves, but what is most interesting - I can these corroborate only partly from internet sources - that young individual is green, but getting older (or ill) same individual become more and more yellow and brown as so old one fades like leave and at the end fall off from twig (Komárek: Mimicry, apesematism... (2001))
In these german link
http://www.phyllium.de/html/ph__pu__bioculatum.html
is written, that "Die Farbe kann durch Temperatur, Nahrung und Licht (Bronn 1957) beeinflusst werden." : Colour can be changed through temperature, light and nurture. Komárek wrote, that green colour is present due chlorophyl from plants.
Some of non-darwinian explanation of these excessive crypsis may be of interest. I do not know how a darwinist perceive these crypsis going far far beyond necessity. They are not so common as "normal" crypsis, so we can doubt, that selection is driving mechanism. Individuals and species in same areas thrive very well with far "softer" crypsis.
Heikertinger and Piepers saw crypsis as photographing, taking picture of surroundings through optic nerves. Komarek wondered why nobody tried to explain crypsis on ground of C.G.Jungs synchronicity.
I think that it would be of some worth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Brad McFall, posted 09-25-2006 4:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Brad McFall, posted 10-05-2006 5:36 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 135 of 188 (359383)
10-27-2006 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Brad McFall
10-05-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Brad Mc Fall,
do you believe in "spirit" or no? Do you think that "spirit" (der Geist, duch, dusa - in slavonic languages) has anything to do with evolution? Is it possible in your opinion that evolution was directed to the point when God give "spirit" (der Geist) to human in some point of development, when predecessor of mankind was "fit" to obtain it, or no? Sergey Bulgakoff opinion was that evolution was direrected to the point when supranatural power has partner to "breath in" the spirit into it.
Sergei Bulgakov - Wikipedia
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Brad McFall, posted 10-05-2006 5:36 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Brad McFall, posted 11-13-2006 6:39 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 136 of 188 (361848)
11-05-2006 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Wounded King
09-01-2006 6:04 AM


Reading book on medical genetics I hit on chapter on evoution of gene clusters. As an example is given Papilio Dardanus with which I started the thread. The point is that alleles to be most effective should be by chromosome rearrangements clustered together. And this locus than present itself so to say as unit. This seems to be the case of P.dardanus. Yet according neodarwinist this should be driven by randomness:
WoudedKing 4.9.2006 writes:
... the origins of these phenotypes has a random component although these mutations may cluster around specific signalling pathways important in the pattern specification for the wing pigmentation.
And Nijhout on P.dardanus:
Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the female color morphs of P. dardanus is that their diversity is controlled by allelic variation at a single locus, the mimicry gene, H. There are at least 11 alleles at this locus, and the various diploid combinations of these alleles account for the diversity of highly distinctive female color patterns.
.
.
.
Clarke and Sheppard (1960d) suggested that the diverse phenotypic effects of this locus could be explained if it was actually a tightly linked cluster of genes, each with an independent effect on the phenotype. Such a supergene could arise by recombination eventsthat move genes with related functions for pattern specification to a common region of a chromosome; recombination within such a gene cluster could be inhibited by an inversion.
I would add that only crossing-over may break such cluster. But let us look to these "recombination events that move genes with related functions for pattern specification to a common region" with a math. If we had 11 alleles in same locus or common region and yet they were originally settled elsewhere what is the probability, that "recombination events" would put them together? I would say, that if we want randomly put 11 alleles from 1.000 together (humans have 30.000 genes so 1.000 is underestimated number of P.Dardanus) it would be probability 1/11^1000 that they clustered randomly together. It meansprobability 10^(-1041) - so it is impossible. We should take into consideration that such clustering should occurs not only once but at least 11 times - so many morphs of P.dardanus do we observe.
So it would be better instead of blind belief to random recombination at least accept idea, that these recombination events in P.Dardanus were by no way random, but directed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2006 6:04 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Wounded King, posted 11-05-2006 3:04 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 138 of 188 (362180)
11-06-2006 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Wounded King
11-05-2006 3:04 PM


Is there any reason why you feel the papilio locus of 11 alleles needs to be due to 11 distinct paralogous genes clustered together due to function rather than one or a mixture of these other factors?
Its a Nijhout conclusion, that there are 11 alleles that make up morph phenotype. While there are 14 female morphs I suppose that relation or constraint that makes all of them dominant should arise 14 times (and no 11 as I suppose previously). It seems to me now, that it does not matter so much on the fact if they are clusterd or no. What is important is fact, that mating experiment with butterfies from given area give discrete morphs, no intermediate. From this result we can deduce that these 11 alleles create "unit" that is dominant as a whole or no. They must be somehow fast connected - if by positioning on the same locus or by regulatory genes does not decrease probability of creating such compact unit of random 11 alleles from 1000.
It is also not a reliable assumption that a) all of the genes arrived in this fashion and b) that all recombinations are equiprobable.
I would say that there should be other forces as "randomnes" that bind these alleles together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Wounded King, posted 11-05-2006 3:04 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Wounded King, posted 11-06-2006 5:30 PM MartinV has replied

MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 142 of 188 (364118)
11-16-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Brad McFall
11-13-2006 6:39 PM


Re: Regarding the difference of Davison and Brad
Anyway if you want to play this question out I consider it as central one. The greatest thinkers of our modern time who influenced me most are Fyodor Dostoevsky (the best writer according atheist Nietzsche, better as Stendhal, see the Nietzsches last book Gtzen-Dmmerung. Btw. Nietzsche in this book ridicules also Darwin ) and Carl Gustav Jung. Both of them were strong Christians. In english/american translation as far as I know there is missing one of the most interesting novel from Dostoevsky Raw young (Vrastok) that also according Berdayeff is most russisch of all his work.
Nikolai Berdyaev - Wikipedia
I would add that "RAW YOUNG" is one of the most spiritual and pneumalotigal novel I ever read
Dostoevsky struggled against materialsm and atheism and he believed that communism never win in Russia (what a mistake).
Yet C.G.Young wrote that he could not treat patients but believing that spirit exists. I mentioned this because according Komarek from Charles university Prague (On mimicry and aposematism (2002)) there was never an attempt to consider mimicry as phenomenon of Carl Gustav Jungs concept of "synchronicity". Komarek means that it is due the fact that bilologists do not communicate with psychiatrists.
-----
Nietzsche on darwinism AND MIMICRY in Gotzen Dammerung (see especially that Darwin forget spirit (Geist) - "das ist englisch!"), :
Anti-Darwin. - Was den berhmten Kampf um's Leben betrifft, so scheint er mir einstweilen mehr behauptet als bewiesen. Er kommt vor, aber als Ausnahme; der Gesammt-Aspekt des Lebens ist nicht die Nothlage, die Hungerlage, vielmehr der Reichthum, die —ppigkeit, selbst die absurde Verschwendung, - wo gekmpft wird, kmpft man um Macht... Man soll nicht Malthus mit der Natur verwechseln. - Gesetzt aber, es giebt diesen Kampf - und in der That, er kommt vor -, so luft er leider umgekehrt aus als die Schule Darwin's wnscht, als man vielleicht mit ihr wnschen drfte: nmlich zu Ungunsten der Starken, der Bevorrechtigten, der glcklichen Ausnahmen. Die Gattungen wachsen nicht in der Vollkommenheit: die Schwachen werden immer wieder ber die Starken Herr, - das macht, sie sind die grosse Zahl, sie sind auch klger... Darwin hat den Geist vergessen (- das ist englisch!), die Schwachen haben mehr Geist... Man muss Geist nthig haben, um Geist zu bekommen, - man verliert ihn, wenn man ihn nicht mehr nthig hat. Wer die Strke hat, entschlgt sich des Geistes (- "lass fahren dahin! denkt man heute in Deutschland - das Reich muss uns doch bleiben"...). Ich verstehe unter Geist, wie man sieht, die Vorsicht, die Geduld, die List, die Verstellung, die grosse Selbstbeherrschung und Alles, was mimicry ist (zu letzterem gehrt ein grosser Theil der sogenannten Tugend).
Edited by MartinV, : Nietzsche citation
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Brad McFall, posted 11-13-2006 6:39 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2006 7:50 PM MartinV has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024